Perhaps your definition of ‘many’ varies from mine.
Fair enough Kyle, but for me your account significantly seems to ignore Police Association President Greg O'Connor's aggressive politicising of police issues.
Sometimes the police force will influence laws, but in my experience they don’t tend to lead the charge on many law changes in their area
The thing is – we have no context at all for how usual or unusual this is. We don’t know what items the police believed they were looking for, what processes were used during that search, whether all officers were involved for the whole time, what downtime there was.
Your constant harping on 'we' ignores that you could well be addressing people who, for all you know, may well be better informed about a number of aspects of this case and its background than you are. Yet you continue to offer yourself as some kind of paragon of virtuous ignorance.
If I had five bucks for every numbskull right-winger who’s demanded on the internet today that Hager be prosecuted for “receiving stolen property” …
Then there were all those fine minds being exercised back in the Hollow Men era over the materiality or otherwise of Brash's emails. My favourite was the prediction that Hager would "have his ears nailed to the wall" for something resembling lèse-majesté against the goodly person of Dr. Don.
In the case of this hacker it seems more likely that the discovery of material with journalistic merit was a byproduct of the theft, not the reason for it.
The claim at the time Dirty Politics was published was that the hacker was motivated by disgust at Slater’s attack on the memory of the dead ‘feral’.
In the real world, New Zealand has a very long way to go until it reaches even Singaporean levels of authoritarianism.
True dat. While it can seem like something from a more innocent age in terms of the more recent revelations about online surveillance, the public misgivings about Singapore Telecom’s takeover of Australia’s Optus back in 2001 were solidly founded. It’s more than a little disturbing to have your second-largest telco controlled by a state owned enterprise of a government that carries out practically warrantless surveillance and detention of its own citizens.
Oh god, we’re not going into a 9/11 Truth hole here are we?
Ian's point clearly went right over your head there.
Again, the police didn’t just walk in and clean out the newsrooms. RNZ, TVNZ and the HoS were able to contest the warrants. They didn’t just have all kinds of stuff seized and get told to go to court to get it back.
Indeed. The TVNZ experience seemed rather less gruelling than what Hager and his family were subjected to. The level of intimidation appears to be relative to the size of the target.
The benefit of the doubt I’m giving they police is that they know better than we armchair critics how to manage there resources.
The issue you’re avoiding is the possibility that the police were acting as it turned out they did in the Urewera raids – i.e. according to a selective political agenda. At the time, even Martyn Bradbury initially played down that possibility while talking up the "terror threat".
But I don’t think we’re in any position, from hundreds of kilometres away with almost literally no information at all, to be making assertions about what the police should and should not be focusing on, or how they should be doing it.
There’s clearly no way that Rawshark (or Whaledump, or whatever) knew that he was acting in the public interest when he targeted Slater’s communications.
So the police are to be given the full benefit of the doubt while the hacker(s) receive none. This is exactly the kind of beardstroking apologist nonsense that blighted mainstream media coverage of the Urewera raids and their dismal aftermath.